Today we have George Monbiot (referred to as “Moonbat” by some of his “friends”) yelling like Tarzan after getting a nice sloppy kiss from Jane, about how Rajendra Pacuauri, Chairman of the IPCC, has been cleared of financial wrongdoing by KPMG, found here.

To read Mr. Monbiot’s blog one would think that this entailed a complete financial audit and that it is 100% proof positive of no wrongdoing by Pachauri. It would be nice if that was true, if it were I’d accept it. But after reading the report I have to say that while it sounds like “exoneration” on the face of it, I find some things surrounding this “exoneration” that I feel would lead a reasonable person to question the veracity of the report.

First: To analyze this, lets first remember that there’s absolutely zip, nada, nothing in the KPMG report regarding any of the actual science surrounding the last IPCC report. If you remember it is the one that had the glaciers in the Himalayas melting by 2035. This is not reporting about anything other than anything other than Mr. Pachauri’s finances. KPMG is financial accounting company, not Science-R-Us.

Second: Lets go over the report and see what we find inside it.

Note it’s only a “review” and isn’t a complete audit.

It’s been done by KPMG, which while I’m sure is a good organization still has had its pecadellos over the years such as:

a) A 2003 scandal in which KPMG admitted setting up phony tax-shelters: “KPMG admitted to setting up fake tax shelters for it’s wealthiest clients, which helped them evade paying $2.5 Billion in tax dollars throughout the 1990’s. If that wasn’t enough, KMPG was accused with the obstruction of justice as investigators tried to piece together the facts of the accounting scandal.”

i) Slipped up when providing statements for the Hontex IPO in 2009, which raised $129 million USD.

ii) Which caused the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission to go to court to freeze the assets of Hontex.

iii) “The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) charged KPMG senior manager Leung Sze-chit, 32, of offering a bribe of HK$100,000 (US$12,900) in February to his subordinate, Lau Shuk-ting, “as a reward for preparing the accountant’s report in the prospectus for the global offering of Hontex.”

(Again, I am can’t and won’t say that KPMG did anything regarding this review that was improper, you can read up on them and judge for yourself. I do think the aforementioned “problems” would at least cause a reasonable person to wonder if perhaps anything “off-color” went on with this “review.” Don’t blame me, blame KPMG’s past performance, I’m only making you aware of it, you can judge for yourself.)

3. At the end of this “review” in Section 6.1, please note the following statements:

6.1 Limitations

6.1.1 This report is based on information provided to us by TERI, Dr. Pachauri and his tax counsel,Mr. Ashok Khurana (M/s A.K. Khurana & Associates, Chartered Accountants). Work done by us was as considered necessary at the given point in time. Third party evidence has not been verified. We have relied on both oral and documentary evidence.

6.1.2 In accordance with its policy, KPMG advises that neither it nor any Partners or employee undertakes responsibility arising in any way whatsoever, to any person other than our client in respect of the matters dealt in this report, including any errors or omission therein, arising through negligence or otherwise, however caused.

6.1.3 Our work constituted limited review, and the scope of our work was significantly different from that of an audit and cannot therefore be relied upon to provide the same level of assurance as an audit.

4. Date of Report

a). Please note per the shot of the cover above that the report only covers for the dates between April 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009.

b) The IPCC 4th Assessment report was completed and published in February, 2007. This is an amazingly long time before the review starts covering Pachauri’s finances in 2008.

c) One should also note that Dr. Pachauri was hired as Chairman of the IPCC in July, 2001. This leaves almost 6 years of no financial data having been provided or reviewed while he was Chairman of the IPCC.

5. Future Compensation

a) There is no mention of any future compensation that may or may not have been promised to Dr. Pachauri by TERI, or anyone else.

(I know it’s not anything that KPMG could put a finger on, but face it, it is entirely possible that Pachauri could end up with a nice fat seat on the Board of Directors at someplace after he’s done being Chairman of the IPCC as a reward for being a good boy. I guess one could pick anyone who will profit from global warming and the resulting carbon trading as a potential benefactor. Speculation indeed, but it’s a valid question. Whether it has a valid answer or not is another story.)

SUMMARY

Here we have a “review” based upon information provided by the people being investigated that has not been verified. We also have KPMG playing CYA by basically stating they’re not going to be responsible if there was any hanky-panky or if TERI, Pachauri or his tax counsel “conveniently” forgot to provide them with anything, or if anything they provided wasn’t 100% accurate. (To simplify things it means this could perhaps be a case of bullshit in and bullshit out.)

Then they close by saying it’s not an audit and shouldn’t be taken as an audit because of all the aforementioned reasons. If it were an audit the information would have been verified, but it wasn’t. Sorry, but this really sounds just like the computer “models” used by certain “warmer” orientated scientist to “prove” their global warming theories. They plug-in whatever “conveniently” arrives at the conclusion that we have CO2 induced global warming.

Perhaps the information provided in this “review” was of the same order. Instead of feeding in scary things like hot temperatures, we may have a case of feeding in nice financial things that prove everyone is “above-board” and totally honest.

You can decide for yourself. Do you think this really is an exoneration of Dr. Pachauri’s financial dealings? Or, is it a case of CO2 Insanity? Sorry but I can’t feel satisfied that this is an exoneration.